Re: [PATCH 05/15] t/Makefile: optimize chainlint self-test
- From
Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de>
- Date
- Dec 13, 2021, 15:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20211213154327.pmhopjbdlkz7dgjh@fs>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cSKn6wdPKc=b8Xjqy5D=bVdu6FQtYKJuwN2VoV7pEEgHw@mail.gmail.com>
On 13.12.2021 09:27, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
>On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 5:22 AM Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de> wrote: >> On 13.12.2021 01:30, Eric Sunshine wrote: >> > check-chainlint: >> >+ sed -e '/^# LINT: /d' $(patsubst %,chainlint/%.test,$(CHAINLINTTESTS)) >'$(CHAINLINTTMP_SQ)'/tests && \ >> >+ cat $(patsubst %,chainlint/%.expect,$(CHAINLINTTESTS)) >'$(CHAINLINTTMP_SQ)'/expect && \ >> >+ $(CHAINLINT) '$(CHAINLINTTMP_SQ)'/tests >'$(CHAINLINTTMP_SQ)'/actual && \ >> >+ diff -u '$(CHAINLINTTMP_SQ)'/expect '$(CHAINLINTTMP_SQ)'/actual >> >> If I read this right you are relying on the order of the .test & .expect >> files to match. I did something similar in a test prereq which resulted in a >> bug when setting the test_output_dir to something residing in /dev/shm, >> since the order of files in /dev/shm is reversed (at least on some >> platforms). Even though this should work as is I could see this leading to a >> similar bug in the future. > >It's not seen in the patch context, but earlier in the file we have: > > CHAINLINTTESTS = $(sort $(...,$(wildcard chainlint/*.test))) > >which provides stability via `sort`, thus ensures that the order of >the ".test" and ".expect" match. > >I think that addresses your concern (unless I misunderstand your observation).
Yes, thats what i meant. I didn't realize $CHAINLINTTESTS is already the sorted glob. Thanks for clarifying.
Personally i find the initial for loop variant to be the most readable. Ævars makefile targets could be very nice too, but especially:
+$(BUILT_CHAINLINTTESTS): | .build/chainlint +$(BUILT_CHAINLINTTESTS): .build/%.actual: % + $(CHAINLINT) <$< | \ + sed -e '/^# LINT: /d' >$@ && \ + diff -u $(basename $<).expect $@
i find very hard to grasp :/ I have no idea what is going on here: `<$< |` ?